Does Atheistic Fanaticism Really Exist? - Think Atheist2016-12-09T16:22:05Zhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/does-atheistic-fanaticism?feed=yes&xn_auth=nohttp://www.foxnews.com/opinio…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2014-08-29:1982180:Comment:14875532014-08-29T01:41:27.422ZMike Colehttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/MikeCole
<p><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/08/28/prayer-for-injured-teen-sparks-atheist-outrage/?intcmp=latestnews" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/08/28/prayer-for-injured-teen-sparks-atheist-outrage/?intcmp=latestnews</a></p>
<p>Yes, some atheists are asshats. We have no more right to bully the religious than they have to bully us. If someone doesn't stand up to be the "bigger man", we've already lost.</p>
<p>Yes. Atheists can be fanatics. Just chill. We're…</p>
<p><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/08/28/prayer-for-injured-teen-sparks-atheist-outrage/?intcmp=latestnews" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/08/28/prayer-for-injured-teen-sparks-atheist-outrage/?intcmp=latestnews</a></p>
<p>Yes, some atheists are asshats. We have no more right to bully the religious than they have to bully us. If someone doesn't stand up to be the "bigger man", we've already lost.</p>
<p>Yes. Atheists can be fanatics. Just chill. We're right. Yes, religion fucks people up more than it helps them. But we've got to be "cool" about our approach. Changing this world is gonna take TIME. Stop shoving atheism and logic down their throats. Do it "nice". They'll eventually come around</p>
<p></p> I think that is an awesome an…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2014-08-26:1982180:Comment:14871592014-08-26T18:01:41.014ZRoy Pliskohttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/RoyPlisko
<p>I think that is an awesome answer. Thank you. It is very honest about our own ability to figure it out and it fits into the kind of agnosticism that I think I gravitate towards. Maybe my problem is I am a big "what if" guy. I'll admit that. But I do like to hope that my "what if" follows a rational train of thought, at least up to the point where we can't track it any longer.<br/><br/>As a lighting designer I sometimes think of the big bang as a "big fade up."</p>
<p>I think that is an awesome answer. Thank you. It is very honest about our own ability to figure it out and it fits into the kind of agnosticism that I think I gravitate towards. Maybe my problem is I am a big "what if" guy. I'll admit that. But I do like to hope that my "what if" follows a rational train of thought, at least up to the point where we can't track it any longer.<br/><br/>As a lighting designer I sometimes think of the big bang as a "big fade up."</p> tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2014-08-26:1982180:Comment:14873952014-08-26T13:53:01.851ZA.T. Heisthttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/ATHeist615
<p><a target="_blank" href="https://wickershamsconscience.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/unholy_trinity3.jpg"><img class="align-full" src="https://wickershamsconscience.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/unholy_trinity3.jpg"/></a></p>
<p><a target="_blank" href="https://wickershamsconscience.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/unholy_trinity3.jpg"><img class="align-full" src="https://wickershamsconscience.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/unholy_trinity3.jpg"/></a></p> tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2014-08-26:1982180:Comment:14872442014-08-26T13:52:25.652ZA.T. Heisthttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/ATHeist615
<p><a target="_blank" href="http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/extremists/3.png"><img class="align-full" src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/extremists/3.png"/></a></p>
<p><a target="_blank" href="http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/extremists/3.png"><img class="align-full" src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/extremists/3.png"/></a></p> When it comes to understandin…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2014-08-25:1982180:Comment:14872042014-08-25T22:58:22.462ZMo Trauenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/MoTrauen
<p>When it comes to understanding the universe--especially its origins--humans are not well equipped. Our brains evolved to understand life here on earth and not how the universe came to be. Human attempts to understand the universe often result in attempts to fit cosmology into our earthly experience, which is rather like trying to put a rather large square peg into a tiny round hole. I think that most of the time we are lucky if we ask the right questions, much less have the right…</p>
<p>When it comes to understanding the universe--especially its origins--humans are not well equipped. Our brains evolved to understand life here on earth and not how the universe came to be. Human attempts to understand the universe often result in attempts to fit cosmology into our earthly experience, which is rather like trying to put a rather large square peg into a tiny round hole. I think that most of the time we are lucky if we ask the right questions, much less have the right answers.</p>
<p>Personally, I question whether the big bang is actually how the universe came to be, in part because of the questions you ask about a lack of center or outer boundaries. There is enough evidence for it for us to assume that something like it happened. I strongly suspect the theory will have to be revised, however, at some point.</p>
<p>The problem is that our understanding of an explosion is not a perfect fit. If the theory is correct, there wasn't a big bang in the sense of an explosion with a center and boundaries, rather the universe suddenly came into existence and began expanding all at once in every direction. This notion is rather difficult for us humans to wrap our heads around because it is alien to our experience.</p>
<p>I am agnostic with regard to the origins of the universe because it is necessarily a phenomenon outside all human experience and, at least in part, outside the very universe itself. It may not be possible for us to understand it.</p>
<p>That said, there is evidence for the big bang. Cosmic background radiation, which was predicted by the theory, has been detected and is consistent with the theory. In addition, the stars furthest away from us are usually first generation stars containing only the simplest elements, which is exactly what one would expect if the big bang were true.</p>
<p>My usual response to questions about the origins of the universe from believers is to point out that no one knows the answer to such questions and only a liar, a madman or a fool would claim to. Most important, I point out that this question is separate from the question of the existence of god and that confusing the two, as most religious people do, shows that they are implicitly engaging in circular reasoning in which the question (the existence of the universe) is said to prove the answer (god).</p> "More important, he might und…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2014-08-25:1982180:Comment:14870602014-08-25T21:31:58.010ZRoy Pliskohttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/RoyPlisko
<p><em><strong>"More important, he might understand the notion that non-falsifiable hypothesis must be assumed to be false in the absence of evidence for such propositions. That is, the lack of evidence tells us that the null hypothesis is the correct conclusion."</strong></em><br></br><br></br>I've asked other people about their thoughts on the theory that our universe has no center. I wonder what your's are. I think it is useful because it is a secular concept that appears to be adopted into the…</p>
<p><em><strong>"More important, he might understand the notion that non-falsifiable hypothesis must be assumed to be false in the absence of evidence for such propositions. That is, the lack of evidence tells us that the null hypothesis is the correct conclusion."</strong></em><br/><br/>I've asked other people about their thoughts on the theory that our universe has no center. I wonder what your's are. I think it is useful because it is a secular concept that appears to be adopted into the working model for the big bang. Yet I find a real absurdity in this hypothesis when I measure it against the standards you are describing.<br/><br/>Whatever prevents the universe from having a center would also prevent it from having an outer boundary wouldn't it? Either one of those conditions prevents us from have any possible way to confirm that it is expanding or that it has a shape. Expanding from what into what? Small infinity into large infinity? <br/><br/>So how do we create a theory that is falsifiable and verifiable concerning the expansion of a universe with no center or outer boundary? How has this been handled well enough to become a mainstream scientific theory? Or are you saying that they are mistaken and we should assume that this is a false proposition because all measurable things must have centers?<br/><br/><br/></p> I think the article explains…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2014-08-25:1982180:Comment:14869582014-08-25T19:04:27.929ZMo Trauenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/MoTrauen
<p>I think the article explains rather well why most people believe in electrons and not fairies: evidence. The evidence for electrons (or something very like our understanding of what electrons are) is overwhelming. There isn't a shred of evidence for fairies.</p>
<p>If the author were a philosopher, logician, or the like, he might understand the implications of a complete lack of evidence. More important, he might understand the notion that non-falsifiable hypothesis must be assumed to be…</p>
<p>I think the article explains rather well why most people believe in electrons and not fairies: evidence. The evidence for electrons (or something very like our understanding of what electrons are) is overwhelming. There isn't a shred of evidence for fairies.</p>
<p>If the author were a philosopher, logician, or the like, he might understand the implications of a complete lack of evidence. More important, he might understand the notion that non-falsifiable hypothesis must be assumed to be false in the absence of evidence for such propositions. That is, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">the lack of evidence tells us that the null hypothesis is the correct conclusion</span>.</p>
<p>The author is concerned with meeting the standard of scientific certainty. He concludes that the null hypothesis (in this case that there is no god) does not meet that standard. Why? Because it cannot be proven with certainty.</p>
<p>But, as we have already discussed, no conclusion is completely certain, and, as I alluded to above, the god hypothesis is non-falsifiable. That is to say that by its very nature it can NEVER be disproved. Non-falsifiable hypotheses such as fairies, god, Harry Potter, and magic are correctly and logically assumed to be untrue unless and until evidence to the contrary appears.</p>
<p>In short, I think Prof. Kuipers has not kept up with developments in the philosophy of science. His conclusions regarding statements that belong in scientific textbooks, however, are partially correct. Scientific textbooks should not express strong opinions concerning religion, although I don't think the passages quoted violate that general stricture.</p>
<p>Even the most allegedly offensive passage quoted merely says that "Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of life processes superfluous." This is not a statement that religion is false, merely that it is superfluous when studying life processes. From a scientific standpoint, this is absolutely true. There is simply no need for a scientist to study or refer to these other explanations.</p> I would agree with you but th…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2014-08-25:1982180:Comment:14870542014-08-25T16:59:26.280ZRoy Pliskohttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/RoyPlisko
<p>I would agree with you but then we would both be wrong. :)</p>
<p>I would agree with you but then we would both be wrong. :)</p> Mo,You shared some articles w…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2014-08-25:1982180:Comment:14869542014-08-25T16:58:49.225ZRoy Pliskohttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/RoyPlisko
<p>Mo,<br></br><br></br>You shared some articles with me and now I found an interesting one:<br></br><br></br>Why do we believe in electrons and not fairies when both have not been observed?<br></br><br></br><a href="http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~kuipers/opinions/electrons-vs-fairies.html" target="_blank">http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~kuipers/opinions/electrons-vs-fairies.html</a><br></br><br></br>It is explaining the scientific method, not trying to create fallacies about fairies. But it made me think about the things being…</p>
<p>Mo,<br/><br/>You shared some articles with me and now I found an interesting one:<br/><br/>Why do we believe in electrons and not fairies when both have not been observed?<br/><br/><a href="http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~kuipers/opinions/electrons-vs-fairies.html" target="_blank">http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~kuipers/opinions/electrons-vs-fairies.html</a><br/><br/>It is explaining the scientific method, not trying to create fallacies about fairies. But it made me think about the things being brought up in this discussion.<br/><br/>Thoughts?</p> steenkh wrote: (Although, fu…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2014-08-24:1982180:Comment:14867512014-08-24T16:38:26.167ZMo Trauenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/MoTrauen
<p>steenkh wrote: (Although, funnily, I have been accused of preaching when I answered questions about atheism truthfully without having started the subject myself)</p>
<p>This is exactly the sort of scenario that I have experienced and which, in part, leads me to say that "atheist fanaticism" doesn't exist and calling us fanatics is just a way of trying to shut us up.</p>
<p>steenkh wrote: (Although, funnily, I have been accused of preaching when I answered questions about atheism truthfully without having started the subject myself)</p>
<p>This is exactly the sort of scenario that I have experienced and which, in part, leads me to say that "atheist fanaticism" doesn't exist and calling us fanatics is just a way of trying to shut us up.</p>